WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Ficrea Doseh

Case No. D2020-2544

1. The Parties

Complainant is Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France.

Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Ficrea Doseh, Benin.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mutuelcredit-group.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 1, 2020. On October 1, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 1, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent, and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on October 2, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 5, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 7, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 27, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 28, 2020.

The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on November 2, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant, Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel, is the central institution and parent holding company of Credit Mutuel, a French banking and insurance services group. Credit Mutuel has been providing banking services for over a century and currently provides services to 12 million clients, with a network of 3,178 offices in France.

Complainant is the registered owner of numerous trademarks, which consists of or includes the terms “Credit Mutuel”, in France and internationally. Examples include:

- CREDIT MUTUEL, European Union Trade Mark number 18130616 registered on September 2, 2019;
- CREDIT MUTUEL, European Union Trade Mark number 16130403 registered on June 1, 2017;
- CREDIT MUTUEL, European Union Trade Mark number 18130619 registered on May 22, 2020;
- CREDIT MUTUEL LA BANQUE A QUI PARLER, European Union Trade Mark number 5146162 registered on August 23, 2007;
- CREDIT MUTUEL, French trademark number 1475940 registered on July 8, 1988;
- CREDIT MUTUEL, French trademark number 1646012 registered on November 20, 1990.

Complainant and its IT-dedicated subsidiary Euro Information are the owners of several domain names, which include the terms “Credit Mutuel”, including:

- <creditmutuel.info> registered on September 13, 2001;
- <creditmutuel.org> registered on June 3, 2002;
- <creditmutuel.fr> registered on August 10, 1995;
- <creditmutuel.com> registered on October 28, 1995;
- <creditmutuel.net> registered on October 3, 1996;

In particular, Complainant owns and operates websites under the URLs “www.creditmutuel.com” and “www.creditmutuel.fr”, dedicated to its off- and online services and which provide banking services information to the public. In particular, the website “www.creditmutuel.fr” offers online banking services to Complainant’s clients, who can manage their account online through this website.

The trademark CREDIT MUTUEL has also been recognized as well-known in UDRP cases, for example, in:

- Confederation Nationale du Credit Mutuel v. Philippe Marie, WIPO Case No. D2010-1513, regarding <credit-mutuel-3dsecure.com> in which the panel wrote “Besides, Complainant’s trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is well known”;

- Confederation Nationale Du Credit Mutuel v. Georges Kershner, WIPO Case No. D2006-0248, regarding <creditmutuelweb.com> in which the panel wrote “The Complainant is well-known in the fields of banking and insurance services, at least in France”.

The record also shows that, according to the French ministry Order No. 58-966 of October 16, 1958, the use of the wording “Credit Mutuel” is reserved for Complainant and to its related branches.

Respondent registered the Domain Name on May 26, 2020. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a website displaying information of “Mutuel Credit”, an alleged financial company offering financial services, including offering of credit services and loans, and insurance. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for the CREDIT MUTUEL marks and owns many domain names incorporating the CREDIT MUTUEL mark. Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name, which incorporates Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL mark in its entirety, with the terms “Credit” and “Mutuel” reversed in order or inverted in the Domain Name, and with an added dictionary term “-group”, to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well-known CREDIT MUTUEL products and services. Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use a domain name, which includes Complainant’s mark, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states:

“Does a respondent’s default/failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions automatically result in the complaint succeeding?

Noting the burden of proof on the complainant, a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a formal response) would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed: a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true.”

Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant provided evidence of its rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL marks. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the mark CREDIT MUTUEL. With Complainant’s rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL marks established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in which it is registered (in this case, “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842.

Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. This mark, which is fanciful and inherently distinctive, is completely incorporated and clearly recognizable in the Domain Name, notwithstanding that the terms “Credit” and “Mutuel” are inverted or reversed in order, in the Domain Name. The voluntary addition of the dictionary term “group” in relation to the CREDIT MUTUEL mark in the Domain Name, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the Domain Name registered by Respondent.

Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP.

Complainant provided evidence of its rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL marks, which have been registered since at least as early as 1990, well before Respondent registered the Domain Name on May 26, 2020. Complainant has also submitted evidence, which supports that CREDIT MUTUEL is a widely known trademark and a distinctive identifier of Complainant’s products.

From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and the CREDIT MUTUEL marks, and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trademarks.

In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate commercial or fair use. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolves to a website displaying information of “Mutuel Credit”, an alleged financial company offering financial services, including offering of credit services and loans, and insurance. The record shows that “Mutuel Credit” is not registered with the French Trade and Companies Register and not listed in the directory of insurance and financing intermediaries, which is required under a European Union directive dating from 2002. Complainant also indicates that “Mutuel Credit” has no affiliation or link with the Credit Mutuel Group.

Such use of the Domain Name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate commercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See, e.g., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Charles Duke / Oneandone Private Registration, WIPO Case No. D2013-0875. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

Further, the nature of the Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with Complainant (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1) and interferes with Complainant’s reputation and business activities.

Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:

“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”

The Panel finds that Complainant provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the CREDIT MUTUEL marks long predate the registration of the Domain Name by Respondent. Complainant is also well established and known worldwide. Therefore, Respondent was likely aware of the CREDIT MUTUEL marks when he registered the Domain Name, or knew or should have known that the Domain Name was identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973.

Under the circumstances, Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name incorporating Complainant’s widely-known CREDIT MUTUEL trademark in its entirety with an additional term “-group” suggests that Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL mark, in an effort to opportunistically capitalize on the registration and use of the Domain Name.

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070, where POKÉMON was held to be a well-known mark of which the use by someone without any connection or legal relationship with the complainant suggested opportunistic bad faith; BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007, where it was held that the respondent acted in bad faith when registering the disputed domain name, because widespread and long-standing advertising and marketing of goods and services under the trademarks in question, the inclusion of the entire trademark in the domain name, and the similarity of products implied by addition of telecommunications services suffix (“voip”) suggested knowledge of the complainant’s rights in the trademarks.

As discussed above, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a website displaying information of “Mutuel Credit”, an alleged financial company offering financial services, including offering of credit services and loans, and insurance. The record shows that “Mutuel Credit” is not registered with the French Trade and Companies Register and not listed in the directory of insurance and financing intermediaries, which is required under a European Union directive dating from 2002. Complainant also indicates that “Mutuel Credit” has no affiliation or link with the Credit Mutuel Group. Moreover, Respondent, through the Contact page offered on the website, could collect personal information of Internet users and potentially use such information for fraudulent purposes. Such use would be damaging to Complainant’s reputation and interfere with Complainant’s business activities.

Therefore, the Panel finds that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website.

In addition to the circumstances referred to above, Respondent’s failure to file a response and the undelivered Written Notice to Respondent due to false contact details are further indicative of Respondent’s bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith and Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <mutuelcredit-group.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Kimberley Chen Nobles
Sole Panelist
Date: November 9, 2020